| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. St. Aubyn: I do not know what remarks the hon. Gentleman is attributing to me. All I am saying is that, as well as those parents who are suitable and successfully adopt children in this country, there are other parents who may be suitable--who almost certainly are suitable--but whom local authorities are failing to identify. That is the nub of those remarks. Surely he would agree that that is happening in this country.
Mr. Dawson: I do not want desperately to pursue that line, but what the hon. Gentleman has just said is slightly different from what he said earlier, where he implied--in fact, he did more than imply; he stated that local
government and social service departments need not be so rigorous in their assessment of prospective adopters of children from abroad. Perhaps he will get the opportunity to clarify the matter, but it takes us away from the substance of the Bill.
Adoption is profound and irrevocable. It is a great necessity in the protection of children nationally and internationally. I am pleased that the Bill enables the UK to ratify the 1993 Hague convention on protection of children and co-operation in respect of intercountry adoption. As the hon. Member for Guildford acknowledged, it is founded on the UN convention on the rights of the child, in particular, article 21.
It is important to reflect on the fact that we are talking about not the rights of adults to adopt, but the rights of children. Article 21 clearly sets out to ensure that the adoption of a child is authorised only by competent authorities, recognising that intercountry adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child care if the child cannot be placed in a foster or adoptive family or cannot be cared for in his or her country in a suitable manner.
The article aims to ensure that the child who is adopted in another country enjoys safeguards and standards that are equivalent to those on national adoption, and that intercountry adoption placement does not result in improper financial gain. Those are important issues on which to reflect.
We have heard some criticism of social service authorities. I would be the first to criticise many such authorities, but many of the problems to which people allude are to do with resources, pressures on the authorities and the necessary complexity and rigour of the assessment of prospective adoptive parents. There may be a case for examining those procedures, but let no one imagine that they should be watered down, or that we should not look carefully into the most personal, private and important aspects of the adults' relationships and ability to look after and to adopt a child.
I do not want to make too many more remarks. We have to examine intercountry adoption and the backing of article 21 in the light of other parts of the UN convention. Article 23 requires due regard to be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and to the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background. Article 7 relates to the child's right to know and to be cared for by parents and family, and article 8 to the child's right to preserve identity.
I support the Bill absolutely. It will represent in this country a great improvement in services for children who come from other countries. I hope that it will also represent part of the Government's commitment to ensure that the Hague convention is ratified throughout the world. I do not look to the Bill to develop intercountry adoption services. Such services need to be clarified and to be part of the local government mainstream, but the answer for children who live in dire poverty and distress is to sort out the problems in those countries, to develop services there and to reduce the need for intercountry adoption. However, while such adoption is desirable and in the best interests of particular children, it should occur.
Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton):
I do not want to detain the House long because I detect a large element of cross-party agreement on the Bill. Indeed, the way in which it has been debated is a credit to the proceedings of the House. It is a good day for the Chamber. It is exactly the sort of legislation that can be championed by a private Member. It brings credit to the House, which is often lambasted for yah-boo politics across the Dispatch Boxes. To that end, I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) not only on introducing the Bill, but on the way in which he put his case.
Clearly, the country needs a proper legal framework for intercountry adoption; no one here disagrees with that. On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I give the Bill an overall and general welcome. The sooner we get it into Committee and can look at its detail, the better. At heart, we all agree on the principle that lies behind it. We think that we will be living in a better country and that it will be better for children who are adopted from another country if we can get the Bill on to the statute book.
One thing needs to be said, even though anyone who has thought about the issue deeply will, perhaps even indignantly, take it as a given: adoption is a proper, decent and commendable arrangement to which no stigma or disapproval should attach. Some people still get a bit sniffy about it and think that those people who adopt a child are a little odd. That view has to be slammed. Adoption is honourable, worthy and responsible.
The hon. Member for Winchester stayed clear of debating at length existing domestic arrangements for adoption. As my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) said, perhaps those merit further debate and consideration. I do not think that intercountry adoption can be totally separated from intracountry adoption. They are two arms of the same procedure, for the same purpose.
I think that all hon. Members--after reading our constituency mailbag or having spoken to people affected by adoption--still have concerns that there are too many unhappy tales of the way in which social services have conducted their scrutiny, and either approved or disapproved of potential parents for adoption purposes. I am very familiar with one case in which both parents--one black, one white; both graduates--were told that they could not adopt a child because it was not thought appropriate that mixed-race parentage should apply. We want to ensure that all decisions based on such thinking are eradicated in the United Kingdom.
The current domestic scrutiny process was perhaps at the root of the misunderstanding that I detected between the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson)--whose very first intervention was spot on--and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford.
The House should reflect on the fact that some people feel quite strongly that adoption within one's own country is a more natural, appropriate and comfortable state of affairs than actively seeking to adopt a child from another country, for whatever reasons. There are serious issues on both sides of that argument, and they require serious
thought, and perhaps a bit more serious debate, hand in hand with an understanding of how social services should behave and assess people in approving adoption in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer)--who has left the Chamber--made a very thoughtful speech, in which he warned of the dangers of believing that all adoptions from a poorer to a wealthier country were invariably better for the child. He clearly put a lot of thought into the issue, which undoubtedly will be raised in Committee.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) explained why intercountry adoption was growing. However, as I said, I hope that the House will accept that many people hold the view that intercountry adoption should be the exception rather than the rule. None the less, a proper legal framework is required. The hon. Lady, too, clearly had her doubts about the appropriateness of intercountry adoption, particularly as a solution to the plight of those who have been displaced by conflict.
Perhaps I should say, in passing, that the interest shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford in the issue might be explained by the fact that he has so many children of his own--I am told that it is a growing band.
The issue is a deeply emotional and extremely important one. However, as one may have detected in the widespread agreement on it in the House, it is not an essentially contentious issue. The Bill's detail will be considered in Committee, and I hope that those proceedings will demonstrate the same high standards of debate and thought that, so far, today's debate has shown.
Valerie Davey (Bristol, West):
I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on promoting the Bill. I also recognise the importance of the consultations conducted by the previous Government, and the hard work of all those who formulated the Hague convention, which has gained so much support in other countries. If ever there was an act of international human solidarity, the Hague convention is it; it is the exact opposite of ethnic cleansing.
Intercountry adoption allows a child without a family to be accepted, loved and supported by parents, regardless of nationality and national boundaries--and I say that although I accept all the concerns expressed by hon. Members on the need not to expand intercountry adoption. When possible, children should remain in the country in which they were born.
I am pleased to note that the Hague convention is based on the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. The Hague convention--and now the Bill--is intended essentially to safeguard children, and to ensure that adoption is in their long-term good, not simply to meet the short-term needs of adults.
The hon. Member for Winchester and other hon. Members with a relevant professional background have outlined the Bill's legal basis and importance in clarifying
the issues for the 60 countries--including our own--that we hope shall soon ratify the convention and accept procedures and regulations to be followed by everyone.
Simply knowing which countries have reciprocal adoptive agreements will be a huge step forward. Parents sometimes spend months in corresponding, making telephone calls and preparing to visit a particular country, only to discover that that country will not allow intercountry adoptions with the United Kingdom. The possibility of clear and consistent guidance and advice would offer those parents enormous relief. Social services and solicitors in the United Kingdom, and high commissioners and consulates abroad, should all work from the same script and to the same basic guidelines.
Recently, I heard of a British solicitor who unintentionally caused unnecessary work, thereby causing delay and higher costs, because he was not clear on the procedures. I have also recently heard of a high commissioner who almost invalidated 18 months of planning and negotiation by claiming that a medical document was not necessary, whereas it was vital before the child could leave the country of origin.
Costs are another concern, and have already been mentioned in the debate. Although the Bill cannot be prescriptive, it does address the issue of adoption costs and other expenses--which are vital in all adoption work. There are very high costs for parents involved in intercountry adoption, and they should have more information on those costs. There will also have to be some standardisation of costs, which should perhaps be abolished in some cases.
As hon. Members have said, social services charge for home visits. As we also know, charges vary tremendously from one social services department to another. In one case, a social services department charged £3,000 for adoption services, to which £500 was added to cover the social worker's travel costs. That is the type of daunting first hurdle faced by prospective parents, who need fairness and clarity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) said, those costs continue.
Perhaps the greatest variable is the legal agency fees that are charged in the country of origin. Based on my inquiries, those charges seem to range from £250 to £18,000. I am not suggesting that we are able to dictate legal costs--we cannot do it nationally, so we shall certainly not do it internationally--but I trust that, with the ratification of the Hague convention and streamlining, such costs can at least be standardised. Certainly in some cases, those costs should fall.
Families will welcome the proposed amendment to nationality legislation, allowing children of a convention adoption to enter the country as British citizens, and for the procedure in the United Kingdom to take six months rather than one year. I do not think that the possible vulnerability of a child in that first year is fully appreciated. After years of preparing to bring a child to the UK, a further year of legal and social services scrutiny is daunting. Practical issues such as child care benefit and maternity leave also need careful consideration.
Mutual support and continuing guidance for adoptive parents and adopted children would be welcomed by those to whom I have spoken. One welcome consequence of the Bill will be that organisations such as the association of families who have adopted from abroad and Childlink will flourish and there may be more local groups to add
support. When the process of intercountry adoption is less fraught and traumatic, families will be able to think and plan for the future with more confidence.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |